|
|
Post by freestater on Mar 24, 2016 7:54:01 GMT -5
It's rare to see such...honesty. =========================================================== Not really, most folks by nature are hopelessly honest in there posting, others are less so. cough cough Definitely not warfish. This guy's been around a long time and plays it well, but the 'Fist would never have made such an egregious error when ruminating on the nature of "rights". |
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Mar 24, 2016 12:29:36 GMT -5
I dont know if it is the real Fist or not. This version seems to be more to the left than the Fist I remember although I got the feeling there was always a liberal woman inside Fist that was waiting to burst out.
Either way Im glad the politics forum has more juice these days. We welcome everyone. Even the crazies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hotman on Mar 24, 2016 15:04:57 GMT -5
=========================================================== Not really, most folks by nature are hopelessly honest in there posting, others are less so. cough cough Definitely not warfish. This guy's been around a long time and plays it well, but the 'Fist would never have made such an egregious error when ruminating on the nature of "rights". You're wrong. It is 200% him. I have evidence. Only from him. It is Warfish. |
|
|
|
Post by Warfish on Mar 24, 2016 17:32:41 GMT -5
=========================================================== Not really, most folks by nature are hopelessly honest in there posting, others are less so. cough cough Definitely not warfish. This guy's been around a long time and plays it well, but the 'Fist would never have made such an egregious error when ruminating on the nature of "rights". MY friend, be assured, this is the one and only Warfish. That I can guarantee. |
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Mar 24, 2016 19:25:33 GMT -5
Definitely not warfish. This guy's been around a long time and plays it well, but the 'Fist would never have made such an egregious error when ruminating on the nature of "rights". MY friend, be assured, this is the one and only Warfish. That I can guarantee. Often imitated, never duplicated. Great to have you here, trolling or not. |
|
|
|
Post by freestater on Mar 25, 2016 14:11:30 GMT -5
Definitely not warfish. This guy's been around a long time and plays it well, but the 'Fist would never have made such an egregious error when ruminating on the nature of "rights". MY friend, be assured, this is the one and only Warfish. That I can guarantee. oh yeah? ok. |
|
|
|
Post by Warfish on Mar 25, 2016 17:41:24 GMT -5
MY friend, be assured, this is the one and only Warfish. That I can guarantee. oh yeah? ok. I can guarantee it. Of course we both know it's unverifiable, I appreciate that. But you'll simply have to take my word it's Warfish, the Master Debater, Robert Arctor, the Ever Loved Nose Cone of the Poop Log. That, and that alone, I truly want to assure you Free. |
|
|
|
Post by freestater on Mar 25, 2016 19:27:45 GMT -5
I can guarantee it. Of course we both know it's unverifiable, I appreciate that. But you'll simply have to take my word it's Warfish, the Master Debater, Robert Arctor, the Ever Loved Nose Cone of the Poop Log. That, and that alone, I truly want to assure you Free. Alright. I am fairly certain we discussed the nature of "rights" at some length, back on the ole' JI. I could have sworn that we we're in agreement; that rights are imbued to us by virtue of our own humanity, and they are therefore only those because they do not need to be bestowed upon one's self from a third party. This would call into question any claim that housing, food, or healthcare can be a "right". All such benefits (of a society, stipulated) that need another's contribution are not rights, but rather privileges, by their very nature. by the by... what made you start posting around these parts lately? I saw you we're posting on JN for a while. I like it over there, but to be honest, the outright ban on all this politico stuff kinda keeps me away. |
|
|
|
Post by Warfish on Mar 25, 2016 19:53:04 GMT -5
I can guarantee it. Of course we both know it's unverifiable, I appreciate that. But you'll simply have to take my word it's Warfish, the Master Debater, Robert Arctor, the Ever Loved Nose Cone of the Poop Log. That, and that alone, I truly want to assure you Free. Alright. I am fairly certain we discussed the nature of "rights" at some length, back on the ole' JI. I could have sworn that we we're in agreement; that rights are imbued to us by virtue of our own humanity, and they are therefore only those because they do not need to be bestowed upon one's self from a third party. This would call into question any claim that housing, food, or healthcare can be a "right". All such benefits (of a society, stipulated) that need another's contribution are not rights, but rather privileges, by their very nature. by the by... what made you start posting around these parts lately? I saw you we're posting on JN for a while. I like it over there, but to be honest, the outright ban on all this politico stuff kinda keeps me away. Everyone I loved most at JI, generally, is here. And there is nothing that says a right can only be something the Government cannot stop you from doing. A right is what society deems it to be. A society can choose to deem healthcare a right, and yes, society then must find ways to provide it to one and all. And no, it's never going to be "doctors forced at gunpoint", that's hyperbole. Doctors already doctor and will continue to doctor. They'll simply be paid by the State for those can cannot afford it on their own. This is as much a right as any restriction on the State if society decides it is. And society will decide it is, sooner rather than later. Societal evolution. As I say, it's not 1776, we as a species have move a looooong moral way from that point. And as I say, you don;t have to like the rights society grants people, but if you wish to be a member of society, you do have to abide by the rules society sets for us all. Including paying taxes to fund these proactive, granted rights. TLDR: Rights do not and will not ever exist in a vacuum. They come with responsibilities. You do not get to enjoy the right and reject the responsibility. You make a distinction between rights and privildges that is, at best, theoretical/philosophical only. In the real world, there is no material difference. We get what the State allows, nothing more. Nothing less. And the State can change it's mind anytime as to what those rights are. I think American gun owners will eventually find that part out.  |
|
|
|
Post by freestater on Mar 26, 2016 10:14:08 GMT -5
Alright. I am fairly certain we discussed the nature of "rights" at some length, back on the ole' JI. I could have sworn that we we're in agreement; that rights are imbued to us by virtue of our own humanity, and they are therefore only those because they do not need to be bestowed upon one's self from a third party. This would call into question any claim that housing, food, or healthcare can be a "right". All such benefits (of a society, stipulated) that need another's contribution are not rights, but rather privileges, by their very nature. by the by... what made you start posting around these parts lately? I saw you we're posting on JN for a while. I like it over there, but to be honest, the outright ban on all this politico stuff kinda keeps me away. Everyone I loved most at JI, generally, is here. And there is nothing that says a right can only be something the Government cannot stop you from doing. A right is what society deems it to be. A society can choose to deem healthcare a right, and yes, society then must find ways to provide it to one and all. And no, it's never going to be "doctors forced at gunpoint", that's hyperbole. Doctors already doctor and will continue to doctor. They'll simply be paid by the State for those can cannot afford it on their own. This is as much a right as any restriction on the State if society decides it is. And society will decide it is, sooner rather than later. Societal evolution. As I say, it's not 1776, we as a species have move a looooong moral way from that point. And as I say, you don;t have to like the rights society grants people, but if you wish to be a member of society, you do have to abide by the rules society sets for us all. Including paying taxes to fund these proactive, granted rights. TLDR: Rights do not and will not ever exist in a vacuum. They come with responsibilities. You do not get to enjoy the right and reject the responsibility. You make a distinction between rights and privildges that is, at best, theoretical/philosophical only. In the real world, there is no material difference. We get what the State allows, nothing more. Nothing less. And the State can change it's mind anytime as to what those rights are. I think American gun owners will eventually find that part out. So, essentially, your view is 2+2=5 if O'Brien tells you it is. Changing language is an effectiv e tool of control, I won't deny that. Rights do indeed exist in a vacuum. If you we're alone on a desert island (or perhaps, the pond on Walden) you would have all the rights you have right now. You'd be capable of speaking your mind, you'd have the right to defend yourself, think what you like about creator/creation, enjoy and keep the fruits of your labor, and have property. They are rights specifically because they are intrinsic. With that said, I'm going to have to disengage here. Communism in not a light matter for me. I had family who died in the Holodomor. Dear friends of mine have family who are in dire straits in the Ukraine today. If this is some kind of goof, have fun. If not, the transformation is startling and terrible. thankfully, I know that there are some out here who will never sheepishly file into the cattle cars. God bless them, and fuck every statist everywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by Warfish on Mar 26, 2016 21:03:15 GMT -5
Everyone I loved most at JI, generally, is here. And there is nothing that says a right can only be something the Government cannot stop you from doing. A right is what society deems it to be. A society can choose to deem healthcare a right, and yes, society then must find ways to provide it to one and all. And no, it's never going to be "doctors forced at gunpoint", that's hyperbole. Doctors already doctor and will continue to doctor. They'll simply be paid by the State for those can cannot afford it on their own. This is as much a right as any restriction on the State if society decides it is. And society will decide it is, sooner rather than later. Societal evolution. As I say, it's not 1776, we as a species have move a looooong moral way from that point. And as I say, you don;t have to like the rights society grants people, but if you wish to be a member of society, you do have to abide by the rules society sets for us all. Including paying taxes to fund these proactive, granted rights. TLDR: Rights do not and will not ever exist in a vacuum. They come with responsibilities. You do not get to enjoy the right and reject the responsibility. You make a distinction between rights and privildges that is, at best, theoretical/philosophical only. In the real world, there is no material difference. We get what the State allows, nothing more. Nothing less. And the State can change it's mind anytime as to what those rights are. I think American gun owners will eventually find that part out. So, essentially, your view is 2+2=5 if O'Brien tells you it is. Changing language is an effectiv e tool of control, I won't deny that. This statement shows a serious lack of understanding of reality. Would you say ending slavery, formerly a right of white land owning men, is a "2+2=5" situation as well? Is it that hard to understand that the values and beliefs of a society change and eveolve over time, and the scope of "human rights" changes with it? Utterly incorrect. You would have no rights of any kind, you would exist in a situation of total anarchy. At any moment anything you consider a "right" could be taken from you. And this may come as a shock to you, but you don't live alone on an island. You are a member of a 5 billion member society. They are rights because the State allows them and protects them. In your silly "alone on an Island" scenario, all it takes is one other person to come to your island and all your rights are gone if he is stronger and smarter than thee. So much for "intrinsic". Rights than can be taken away are not, in fact, intrinsic at all. But by all means, the world has a number of uninhabited islands. If you truly believe what you claim, perhaps you should live on one yourself, see how you do without society. Sorry for your loss, but I find your inability to have a civil conversation on an intellectual topic very disappointing. And lets be clear, we're discussing Universal Healthcare and a slightly higher tax rate for some very VERY Rich people. That's not "communism" and it's not "socialism". It's modern society almost everywhere else int he civilized 1st world except in America. No one is threatening to exterminate you, and the harm you think is being inflicted on you is not harm at all, it's you who reject society and wish to do harm upon it and everyone in it by taking from it everything good, and rejecting any and all responsibility towards it. It's a massive insult to compare paying taxes with the Holodomor. Or to lining up for cattle cars. You might want to think of the disrespect you levy upon those victims by comparing yourself paying taxes to them. I'll be here if you change your mind. |
|
|
|
Post by freestater on Mar 27, 2016 9:05:06 GMT -5
I must have written that poorly. I didn't compare paying taxes to the Holodomor. I was referring to your avatar and sig pic, which I find as tasteless as someone parading around a Hitler avatar and Swastika sig. To be honest, I can't stand looking at them.
You think rights come from govt. I disagree. Don't care if I change your mind and I'm certain you won't change mine. So... how 'bout them Jets?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Mar 27, 2016 10:52:38 GMT -5
You think rights come from govt. I disagree. Of course rights come from gubbmint. Cavemen didn't sit around the fire chatting about their rights. "Rights" never existed before government did. Were all just a few steps removed from being wild animals anyway. Moneys and tigers don't have any rights. |
|
|
|
Post by Warfish on Mar 27, 2016 13:45:56 GMT -5
I must have written that poorly. I didn't compare paying taxes to the Holodomor. I was referring to your avatar and sig pic, which I find as tasteless as someone parading around a Hitler avatar and Swastika sig. To be honest, I can't stand looking at them. You think rights come from govt. I disagree. Don't care if I change your mind and I'm certain you won't change mine. So... how 'bout them Jets? Since the intellectual concept they stand for offends you, I'll be glad to change them to things that had no part of any possible kind in the events you mention. So be that as it may.... You can live in ignorance, but the reality is that rights, i.e. the protection provided to individuals to do or have X, Y, or Z by the State, does not exist without the State and can be taken away or expanded upon by the State. Your "rights" in your island scenario exist only as far as your personal willingness and ability to kill others to defend them. What you DO have is absolute personal responsibility. You would get nothing, from anyone, and must provide all things for yourself, by yourself. Now, if you want to have no rights (i.e. no protections from others beyond your own hand) and live with absolute personal responsibility, that simply does not exist in society. You would have no option other than to live alone somewhere uninhabited. Clearly, you'll admit, you're just fine with all the wonderful things society provides for you on a daily basis, food, shelter, clothing, none of which you made for yourself, the internet, police, firemen, all funded by society, roads to drive on, hospitals to go to when sick, etc, etc, etc. They all exist because society, not individual anarchist "libertarians", built them, fund them, and staff them. You're view would hold far more respect from me if you really were willing to give up all those great things we, society, give you and subsidize for you, as part of your freedom ranting. But you want it all and not to have to pay for any of it, and to deny things society wants to give to others, and that's simply put wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Mar 27, 2016 13:56:00 GMT -5
You think rights come from govt. I disagree. Of course rights come from gubbmint. Cavemen didn't sit around the fire chatting about their rights. "Rights" never existed before government did. Were all just a few steps removed from being wild animals anyway. Moneys and tigers don't have any rights. That 2% makes all the difference. |
|
